SynthesisApplied health economics and health policy2026
A Systematic Review of Modelling Approaches in Economic Evaluations of Treatments for Inherited Bleeding Disorders.
Synthesis in Applied health economics and health policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this review is to identify and assess modelling approaches in published model-based economic evaluations of treatments for individuals with inherited bleeding disorders.
methodsA literature search was performed on seven electronic databases, from database inception until 30 May, 2024. Inclusion criteria were cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses using decision-analytic models. The approaches from included models were identified and assessed, and these approaches were compared across bleeding disorders and treatments.
resultsThis review included a total of 47 decision-analytic models. The identified models primarily evaluated treatments for severe haemophilia A and B. For haemophilia without inhibitors, factor concentrates were the most evaluated intervention (n = 21, 68%), followed by gene therapies (n = 6, 19%) and emicizumab (n = 4, 13%). For haemophilia with inhibitors, assessed interventions included emicizumab (n = 8, 50%), immune tolerance induction with factor concentrates (n = 5, 31%) and bypassing agents (n = 3, 19%). Markov models were often used as a model type (n = 27, 57%), followed by decision trees (n = 9, 19%), Markov decision trees and decision process (n = 5, 11%) and individual-level models (n = 5, 11%). Regardless of the model type, most authors used a lifetime horizon, a 1-year cycle length, and bleeding events-particularly joint bleeds-as key health states of the models.
conclusionsAs the reviewed decision-analytic models mainly assessed treatments for severe haemophilia, the identified common approaches may only be generalisable to evaluating these treatments. Further research is required to evaluate their relevance for evaluating treatments of milder forms of haemophilia or other inherited bleeding disorders. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42023416560.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.